|
|
Post by shadowgunner on Jun 12, 2012 10:11:43 GMT 9
If you look closely at pictures of the Armament Bay, you will see that in the center, just ahead of the Genie's nose is a large "baffle plate" which I understand was to reduce turbulence, specifically during a Genie launch. On A-models, the forward pair of rails were supported on a "crossbridge" which, besides providing support, also provided turbulence control. Keep in mind that (MA1 guys help me out here) during a launch, the cycle time of the doors & rails was measured in seconds (on the ground operations the doors took about 1.5 secs for closure. rails a little slower, but not by much).
I don't believe that during missile launch, the rails & missiles were hung out in the airstream for very long prior to launch. This would tend to keep the turbulence at a minimum. There are a number of missile experts in the forum that could confirm maximum aircraft speed that the Falcons could be launched at.I think I'll start a new thread about the subject.
Also in regards to using larger air bottles: A number of reasons come to mind. 1) space is at a premium. The bottles were big enough to do the job plus reserve capacity for emergency services that I described in my previous post. 2) air bottles or fuel, which would you choose? 3) there may have been some design limitations around the size & placement of the air bottles; you never know what info will surface to explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 12, 2012 10:52:38 GMT 9
To add to the confusion about pneumatic system demands;
Loring, 1960...... Sufficient capacity (volume) was available to make the following operations-without servicing the system: 2 airstarts, 3 door cyles (open and close) , 2 rail operations, 2 emergency fuel CG transfers (forward and aft), emergency variramp retraction and emergency gear blow down (with the resultant hydrualic fluid mess when bleeding system). There was sufficient air to open the bay doors one more time and unlock the missle rails, which then free fell.. Need more air??? Bail out, it is time for the fat lady to sing, or, you couldn't survive one more emergency anyways.
This was done by my postdock/fcf crew prior to bringing the plane in for its 2nd Periodic Inspection... Thats right, the F-106 was the last fighter aircraft to start its life with a periodic inspection system. All the rest came with either phase inspection or the running phase..
Just a footnote of trivia info.... The Old Sarge
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 12, 2012 15:30:43 GMT 9
Then it begs the question of couldn't they have modded the Six to tap bleed air off the engine to recharge the bottles like was used on the rain-clear system? (Prof. Komnick once told me a story about one of his wingmen who forgot to turn off the rain-clear before lighting up to go supersonic and partially melted the outer layer of the windscreen.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jimpadgett on Jun 12, 2012 21:01:23 GMT 9
Don't think bleed air would provide anywhere near the 3250PSI needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 13, 2012 0:04:55 GMT 9
At Tyndall we had instructor pilots who, in late 60's were approaching 3000 hours in a six. Many of these guys had also five fired numerous times. A trick some used in firing IR was to pull trigger and get the doors open, then come off trigger and wait for IR tone from missile then pull trigger again. This would look like a hung door fire, but they believed it increased odds of IR missile getting hit. It wasn't a long time, but was longer than automated fire. Full autofire sequence from door open to door closed was probably less than 10 seconds.
I believe the Baffle plate on forward rails was to stablize the rails when down in airstream. Rear rails were further back and in smoother air.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 13, 2012 1:22:23 GMT 9
Then it begs the question of couldn't they have modded the Six to tap bleed air off the engine to recharge the bottles like was used on the rain-clear system? (Prof. Komnick once told me a story about one of his wingmen who forgot to turn off the rain-clear before lighting up to go supersonic and partially melted the outer layer of the windscreen.) Aw, comon now, engine bleed air on the Six, was, I believe, taken from 7th stage compression for cockpit air conditioning and pressurization, G suit inflation, air to the intake lips and the rain-clear system. Pat Perry can correct me on this As for melting the outer layer of the windshield, I find this to be extremely hard to believe, when the air temp may be only about 150 degrees F...... Even that stanous oxide electrical conductor sandwiched in the glass couldn't generate that much heat!!!!!! Most glass begins to glow long before it begins to melt-(even beer bottles take over 900 degrees to begin to melt). Imagine the panic in a pilot at night going supersonic seeing his windshield beginning to GLOW!!!!!!!!!! Even taking engine bleed air off of the last stage of compression wouldn't come close to providing enough compression to overcome the pressure already within the flasks. Using it to drive another compressor would put another piece of equipment into an already crowded aircraft.... If you understood the test we did at Loring, why in hell do we need any more compressed air storage?  ? The primary mission required at a max, doors open, one set of rails down, missiles (2) fired, doors closed; doors open, rails down, last 2 missiles fired,doors closed; doors opened, rocket launched, doors closed and lets get to hell out of here now!!!!!! Firing all 4 missiles, in the proper sequence, would eliminate one door operation, thus saving some air.... BUT, for what purpose? ? Had been told that if all 5 weapons missed, that the F-106, was, itself then to become a weapon.... Read the test we did at Loring once again and tell me what in hell would be the necessity for more air to be on board!!!!! In regards to Prof. (?) Komnick's (who is he? ) ( www.hallway.com/professors/joseph-komnick-reviews ? ) story, that is exactly what it is. The Old Sarge |
|
|
|
Post by shadowgunner on Jun 13, 2012 11:03:02 GMT 9
At Tyndall we had instructor pilots who, in late 60's were approaching 3000 hours in a six. Many of these guys had also five fired numerous times. A trick some used in firing IR was to pull trigger and get the doors open, then come off trigger and wait for IR tone from missile then pull trigger again. This would look like a hung door fire, but they believed it increased odds of IR missile getting hit. It wasn't a long time, but was longer than automated fire. Full autofire sequence from door open to door closed was probably less than 10 seconds. I believe the Baffle plate on forward rails was to stablize the rails when down in airstream. Rear rails were further back and in smoother air. That's pretty much the way I remembered it from FTD school. Sooo long ago.. Thanks Loren :2thumbsup |
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 14, 2012 9:10:01 GMT 9
Komnick being LTC Norm, USAFA '65--318th Ops O and CO just before Pat Gamble (sixth from bottom on Ernie's CO List at www.318thfis.com/318TH%20FIS%20-%20PERSONNEL%20-%20SQUADRON%20COMMANDERS%20MAIN.htm ). It was so long ago I may be misremembering the story (and IIRC he specifically mentioned Stage 15, and that afterward he had the windscreen as an instructional aid at 318th then had a coffee-table made out of it)... but when he told it, I was interviewing him for an oral-history project for my History 244 class. Not trying to call ya out, Jim, but Norm was more like a "surrogate father" than a "professor" even if I do prefer to refer to him by formal titles, and... well, I'm trying to cite my source without going overly On D or turning into another She Who Shall Remain Nameless. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 14, 2012 12:25:01 GMT 9
Komnick being LTC Norm, USAFA '65--318th Ops O and CO just before Pat Gamble (sixth from bottom on Ernie's CO List at www.318thfis.com/318TH%20FIS%20-%20PERSONNEL%20-%20SQUADRON%20COMMANDERS%20MAIN.htm ). It was so long ago I may be misremembering the story (and IIRC he specifically mentioned Stage 15, and that afterward he had the windscreen as an instructional aid at 318th then had a coffee-table made out of it)... but when he told it, I was interviewing him for an oral-history project for my History 244 class. Not trying to call ya out, Jim, but Norm was more like a "surrogate father" than a "professor" even if I do prefer to refer to him by formal titles, and... well, I'm trying to cite my source without going overly On D or turning into another She Who Shall Remain Nameless. Heard the story before about someone making a coffee table out of a windshield... Waiting for the MARS man Pat Perry here to help me out... Don't mind being wrong, just don't like making a habit out of it |
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 14, 2012 12:42:05 GMT 9
I hear ya on that one, sir. It was a lotta years between Norm flying and me in his class, and it's been another lotta years between then and now... :yellow-beer
Damn, now I wish I had kept a spare copy of that paper, so I could chop it to the Dart-related section, anonymize it and upload.
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jun 17, 2012 19:44:35 GMT 9
If you understood the test we did at Loring, why in hell do we need any more compressed air storage? ? The primary mission required at a max, doors open, one set of rails down, missiles (2) fired, doors closed; doors open, rails down, last 2 missiles fired,doors closed; doors opened, rocket launched, doors closed and lets get to hell out of here now!!!!!! Firing all 4 missiles, in the proper sequence, would eliminate one door operation, thus saving some air.... BUT, for what purpose? ? Had been told that if all 5 weapons missed, that the F-106, was, itself then to become a weapon.... Read the test we did at Loring once again and tell me what in hell would be the necessity for more air to be on board!!!!! O.K- And please forgive me, I,m just a 50 year old geek with no pilot or maintenance background. After a short mandatory army service my training was an odd mix of university biology and history, then I worked mainly as an internet nerd and now I guess I'm a farmer or forestry landlord or something. So I admit I don't know this stuff. I am aware that say, a classic interceptor like the British Lightning had only two rather obsolete missiles and most versions had no gun. During the Vietnam war the Crusaders could have carried four Sidewinders, but in practice two (plus the cannon) was quite enough to excel as a MiG killer. Finnish MiGs and Drakens carried 2-4 missiles. However, nowadays it seems to be in voque to have persistence in a multi-bogey situation, so more missiles one can carry the merrier. Now the Six would have been needed in the most desperate situation of all. Soviet bombers coming with nuclear bombs. And the Six had only three shots. Maybe it was calculated that no more targets would be in the vectored area of an individual Six. But it still sounds unsafe. The Genie would have been an overkill if the Soviers actually preferred to fly single and not in WWII type formations. Then the Falcons had bad rep and had to be fired in pairs to ensure a kill. After those three shots just go kamikaze, ram one bomber more? So wouldn't it have been far better if the Six carried the Genie. Or the gun. (Having both would be nice but impossible). And then four modern proximity fuzed missiles, which could be fired individually and to separate targets, like it is usually done? And of course enough pressure for FIVE door and rail operations plus all the other stuff that air was needed for. (Please don't kill me Falcon guys  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2012 2:56:14 GMT 9
All is forgiven- not a necessary request, just watch out for those OLD Missileers!!!!!!!!!!!
The Genie wasn't intended to require a direct hit-it was a proximity weapon with an effective radius of destruction..... The Sixes at Loring were never, to my knowledge scrambled in single bird launches. always 2 bird minimum. They continued to launch as long as the Klaxon horn was blowing or, we ran out of mission capable aircraft. The Ruskies would either turn back or move out beyond the 12 mile limit and fly south along the coast. The intercept would be handed off to the 75th FIS F-101Bs from Dow AFB and then to the F-101Bs from the 2nd FIS from Suffolk County AFB. Some where along the line an ANG outfit with F-102s would enter into the picture. Later the 539thFIS and their Sixes from McQuire AFB would enter the picture. Again, to the best of my knowlwdge, a Bear always had at least 2 interceptors riding herd on it...... So, in reality, the opportunities were doubled- eliminating the need for a larger, heavier, and perhaps a slower aircraft that sucked fuel at a greater rate, reducing range to target and back home again.... Believe that this was part of the rationale in keeping the Six as it basically was, the exception of course was the addition of the gun at the loss of the Genie........ Remember, that the Falcons that the Six carried throughout its life were the "MODERN" weapons at the time. The Old Sarge
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jun 19, 2012 4:51:25 GMT 9
All is forgiven- not a necessary request, just watch out for those OLD Missileers!!!!!!!!!!! They might have some falcons stashed in their homes. You seem to be talking about peace time interceptions. I quess that an all-out nuclear war was not much thinked about even among your interceptor forces during day-to-day routines. Anyway, that would have been the end of the world anyway. The Finnish Air Force has to do interceptions too, photographing both NATO and Russian planes. Lately the Russians have became alarmingly active, a couple of times even crossing our border "by accident". Only with transport planes, but still.. Regarding the Falcons sure they were originally the most modern missiles. But they never got proximity fuzes and the need to launch them in pairs tells something. I can understand the logic behind Genies. Again,I don't know but I've been told (I'm not a spy, we have this thing called the internet ) that the fist IR-missiles could only be lauched from astern position. The first radar missiles were unreliable. Air defence needed something against approaching bombers, even something unguided. They assumed that the bombers would come in large formations. (Which was probably not true, so probably a Genie would have been "wasted" against a single target.) They speculated, thar even a downed bomber would have a "dead man's switch" and a Genie would consume the bombs anyway. So Genies were time fuzed. If not still a secret: Was the timer set pre-flight or could it be adjusted during the flight? If not, looks like the distance and lauching speed was pre-determined, since not even the Genie had a blast radius of several cubic miles. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2012 6:11:23 GMT 9
Finnwolf, my friend, you done used up all my expertise.. You will have to now do battle with falconkeeper, soc and the weapons guy from the Scorpion, the aircraft that the Geni was designed for......
The Old Sarge
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 19, 2012 8:01:39 GMT 9
The MA-1 system set the time of flight just prior to release and ignition. It was based on altitude, airspeed and attack angle.
Time of flight not to be confused with rocket burn time.
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff 
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075 
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF
NBA: Spurs
NFL: Niners
MLB: Giants
NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jun 19, 2012 8:48:43 GMT 9
It seems, from my study of history, that governments are always a step or two behind reality, when it comes to wars.
In more recent times, WW2 was fought for some time, using WW1 tactics.
It wasn't until later in the war that the air forces began to have modern enough planes to actually make a difference.
Even our bombing and fighter tactics were outdated.
Come Korea, we just used WW2 tactics, only with jet fighters.
At the speeds jets closed, the .50 Brownings were not up to the real need. So, pilots had to get close, real close, in order to be effective.
The Cold War saw some leaps, some amazing leaps, in technology, and the power and design of aircraft.
However, we were still using weapons that were not up-to-date. Well, for the need, anyway.
The Deuce carried 2.75" unguided explosive tubes in the missile bay doors, the Scorpion had them in the tip tanks, etc.
The One O Wonder had a .20 mm cannon to begin with, then went to missiles and a Genie.
The Six had the same weapons as the 89J and the 101.
All were outdated.
Yes, the Genie was intended to be fired in to a group of Soviet bombers, incinerating them.
However, the Soviets were maybe a half-a-step ahead.
Yep, they were still using antiquated aircraft, but they were flying them some distance from each other, most of the time.
To compensate, both sides came up with the ICBM.
No defense against them, no way to stop them, very little in way of warning.
Just a big flash-bang, then dust, radioactive dust.
Nam was no different, just a different enemy.
Didn't we learn in WW2 that tanks are not effective in swampy junges?
The best weapon in Nam was probably the Huey.
So, where have we gone, and what have we accomplished?
When I read some of the strategy articles, it seems to me we are still trying to fight the last war, and are not being as effective on the battlefields we no wage war on.
But, that will never change, it is just the nature of governments.
If you live in a growing area, like Ron and I, road construction is always twenty years behind. The roads are never built in anticipation of population growth and more vehicles, it is always catch up.
Same with defense.
If you watch "Future Weapons" on the Military Channel, you see some tools that will not be in the hands of our troops for many years, if ever.
A good example is the plastic magazine the Army didn't want the troops to use, even though the troops were paying for them, because they didn't meet the Army metal spec, no matter how much better.
Well, I suppose we could fight these battles for a long, long time, and never solve the problems.
However, it is interesting to read all the posts on the subject, and I have learned quite a bit.
I really appreciate the perspective from Finland. :2thumbsup
Lets us see how one of our allies is doing things.
Jim Too
:god_bless_usa
|
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Jun 19, 2012 9:54:53 GMT 9
Komnick being LTC Norm, USAFA '65--318th Ops O and CO just before Pat Gamble (sixth from bottom on Ernie's CO List at www.318thfis.com/318TH%20FIS%20-%20PERSONNEL%20-%20SQUADRON%20COMMANDERS%20MAIN.htm ). It was so long ago I may be misremembering the story (and IIRC he specifically mentioned Stage 15, and that afterward he had the windscreen as an instructional aid at 318th then had a coffee-table made out of it)... but when he told it, I was interviewing him for an oral-history project for my History 244 class. Not trying to call ya out, Jim, but Norm was more like a "surrogate father" than a "professor" even if I do prefer to refer to him by formal titles, and... well, I'm trying to cite my source without going overly On D or turning into another She Who Shall Remain Nameless. Heard the story before about someone making a coffee table out of a windshield... Waiting for the MARS man Pat Perry here to help me out... Don't mind being wrong, just don't like making a habit out of it Jim, Just got back from a week in Bowling Green at the Nat'l Hot Rod Reunion. They had two cute young female jet dragster drivers this year who ran the quarter in the mid 5 seconds at around 250 MPH. When they banged the burners they shot 80 foot flames and I was standing to the side about 100 feet away and felt a 30-40 radient degree heat build up for a few seconds. Didn't get to see what engines they were using but will try to look them up on the Internet Trying to remember back 46 years but I think the bleed air tapped off 15th stage at around 1100 degrees and went to the heat exchanger which cooled it down to 300 degrees. From there it drove the cooling turbine to 40,000 RPMs and would blow snow if you let it. The 300 degree air also tapped off and fed the cooling ducts to regulate cockpit and MA-1 air temp and went to the rain removal system and windscreen heating (defrost or ice removal) on the ground. I think it was squat switched or altimetered so it shut off after take off but I could be wrong. The vents blew a boundary layer of hot air over the windscreens that kept the rain from hitting them. I never saw or heard any stories about delamination or blistering of windscreen due to Rain Removal system but I guess it's possible under certain conditions. May have been some added wax or plexi polish film that could have burned off when the 300 degree air hit it on the ground but that would have showed up on the outside as a smear ot stain? Or maybe there was an engine problem that drove the temp way up at stage 15? I have seen a few windscreens replaced with blisters close to the leading edge apex but I don't think rain removal caused them? They had to be changed when they blistered or cracked. The cabin was pressurized to about 10 psi and the external air pressure at 60,000 feet is is only 1-2 psi and that's a lot of pressure differential when you have that much surface area of plexiglass. Don't need to be "blowin the winders out" at altitude!!! Makes those pilots cranky!!! Maybe low altitude Mach 2 plus runs could heat them up enough to cause some blistering between the laminations? Or just sitting in the hot sun day after day with all that black behind the screens absorbing radient heat? That's all I know and it could be wrong in some areas. Pat P. |
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 19, 2012 11:55:50 GMT 9
Interesting theories, Pat--I wish Norm were a poster here so we could examine his recollections firsthand and try to diagnose, but as you indicate there are so many possibilities and so many things that could be interpreted as "melt" from inside that the only way to get an answer would be to boost Doc Brown's DeLorean, dial its Wayback Mode to shortly after the sortie in question and disassemble the bird looking for possible causes. If my memory serves me right, this was either an Osan or Pacific NW tour, and I know they were getting into supersonic runs, but I can't be totally sure... perhaps a convergence of circumstances, several of the above all coming together at just the wrong time?
Thanks for weighing in, sir!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2012 12:07:37 GMT 9
Thanks for the clarification on the bleed air..........
Those engines run by those cuties are typically J-85s, dash number unknown.... If they had nozzles, they were welded in the closed position, however most don't have nozzles..... Saw 2 of them run at Bradenton Fla. this past March..... Because of the speeds that the pros were running and the lack of much of a coast down area, they were off the throttle and out with the chute at the 1/8th mile..
The street run what you brung did go the full quarter though... The Jets were hitting 237 at the 1/8
|
|
soc
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 106
Location:
Joined: November 2009
|
Post by soc on Jun 19, 2012 12:43:48 GMT 9
They might have some falcons stashed in their homes. Hey, I want one! :fire_missle_ani Regarding the Falcons sure they were originally the most modern missiles. But they never got proximity fuzes and the need to launch them in pairs tells something. They lacked proximity fuzes because they were meant to be shot at big, cooperative (i.e. non-maneuvering) targets. This was probably 1) cheaper, and 2) easier to fit into the tiny airframe at the time they started development in the late 1940s. No proximity fuze only really affected the AIM-4D in Vietnam, but that was pretty much an asinine and underthought deployment. "Hey, this thing isn't Navy, so it must work better than the AIM-9. Let's hang 'em from Phantoms and call it a day." Turns out that MiG-21s were a hell of a lot more maneuverable than bombers, and the AIM-4D wasn't nearly as effective in fighter-fighter combat as a result. Now, the Swedes bought Falcons for their Draken and Viggen fighters, and re-tooled the export AIM-4C to use the AIM-4G seeker (just like the AIM-4D) and a proximity fuze. Those might've performed better, as a good deal of the AIM-4Ds that missed their targets didn't actually miss by all that much. Plus, bombers are big targets. Blowing up a relatively small warhead near one might not get you a kill. Blowing up a small warhead either on or in one will definitely ruin the bad guy's day. The small warhead was a result of the small missile, which in turn was a result of its original role as a tube-launched bomber defensive weapon. If you look at the history of the Falcon a lot of the seemingly weird or less than ideal components and solutions actually make sense. In hidsight, maybe ADC should've used the radar Falcons only and employed head-on attacks pretty much exclusively. Think about the threat...the only bomber coming close to the USA was the Tu-95. Until the Tu-160 appeared about the time the F-106s were being retired from the ANG, no other Soviet bomber had the legs to get to the USA. Anyway, the radar Falcons were going to go after the biggest radar return. Fire one from head-on and it's going to fly right into one of those massive turboprops, detonating the warhead and causing all sorts of hell for the target, what with the engine blown off and thrown prop blades slicing everything to bits. IR Falcons did give pilots a weapon to use when faced with ECM though, so it did make sense to carry both from that aspect. The limited weapons load also didn't actually make too much of a difference, either. There weren't thousands of Tu-95s, and given all of the interceptors at ADCs disposal they had more shooters than the Soviets had intercontinental bombers. For massive overkill you had a bunch of US and Canadian F-101B/Fs flying around with two Genies each as well. Also, I'll have to go back and see if it had the same warhead, but if the Genie used the same warhead as the AIM-26 (the F-102's Nuclear Falcon), then it wasn't designed so much to kill a bunch of bombers as it was to EMP the crap out of their nuclear weapons. Yes, either one would clearly obliterate targets close enough to the detonation, but they wanted to fry the Soviet weapons to ensure that they weren't able to detonate upon the bomber crashing. Using a nuclear warhead in that regard made a lot of sense: kill at least one target, ensure it's weapons don't detonate on the ground, and if you're lucky score a multiple kill or fry the innards of the bombs on anyone close enough to the EMP zone. Unlike quite a few other ideas and systems during the Cold War, this was one use of nuclear weapons that actually represented a thoroughly sensible concept. Not exactly. Up until the 90's more missiles meant either 1) more shots when you miss (SARH guidance never really worked overly well for AAMs), or 2) more dead targets if you're lucky and keep hitting what you shoot at in sequence - the latter often being described as "combat persistence", since the guy with more AAMs could in theory hang around longer and kill more stuff. Nowadays, with fire-and-forget AAMs, you don't want so much to be able to hang around forever killing things as you want to be able to fire at a lot of guys at the same time. |
|
? The primary mission required at a max, doors open, one set of rails down, missiles (2) fired, doors closed; doors open, rails down, last 2 missiles fired,doors closed; doors opened, rocket launched, doors closed and lets get to hell out of here now!!!!!! Firing all 4 missiles, in the proper sequence, would eliminate one door operation, thus saving some air.... BUT, for what purpose?
)
